"http://coloradoscouter.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/FeaturedImage_BackpackingMeals.jpg
You could precreate leftovers that do not need refrigeration.
Depending on your driving schedule there is the old manifold cooking method:…"
When did "shoot to kill" become the standard advice?
I'm reading this case from 1942/48 [Vaughn v. Jonas, 31 Cal. 2d 586, if you're really curious; it's not very interesting.]. In March 1942, a barkeeper and a patron exchange heated words. Barkeeper takes his gun from a drawer behind the bar, puts it in his belt. Closing time. Patron walks out towards the car with his friends. They're still making a bunch of noise. Barkeeper goes to check what's up. Patron walks toward barkeeper, picks up a very large rock, motions to throw it at barkeeper. Barkeeper shoots at patron, hits him in the abdomen. (The barkeeper didn't even know he hit the patron until the sheriff arrived several hours later.) Patron sues bartender. Bartender defends on a theory of self-defense. Bartender loses, big time. He's found to have acted with malice and/or oppression.
In reviewing the record for evidence of malice or oppression, one of the things the court hit upon is that the barkeeper shot at the trunk at short range, rather than a limb. I've never even touched a gun, and even I know, if you're going to shoot, you shoot to kill, not to scare or wound, unless you're an expert marksman with time to plan your shot. In a contemporary case, especially in the San Francisco Bay Area where so few law-abiding people are familiar with guns (and only very law-abiding people serve on juries), there'd be expert testimony on this rule, and the reasons. But not in the 1940s. So, were the 1940s judges wrong, even for the conventional wisdom of the '40s? or has the shoot-to-kill rule of thumb developed more recently?
It was a civil suit. The burden of proof was on the patron to prove unlawful touching/injury by a preponderance of the evidence, and malice or oppression by clear and convincing evidence. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" and other burdens of proof familiar from criminal cases do not apply.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Peyton Quinn on -
DAM! Suburban , you just saw right through right off it didn't you!
-
-
Permalink Reply by Suburban Sentinel on -
Damn Straight
-
-
Permalink Reply by Rebekah on -
Colorado statute from a sheriff's department website, for my fellow jurists:
18-1-704 Use Of Physical Force In Defense Of A Person
1. Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified
in using physical force
upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person in order to defend
himself or a third person
from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical
force by that other
person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be
necessary for that purpose.
2. Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser
degree of force is
inadequate and:
(a.) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he
or another person is in
imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury; or
(b.) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical
force against an
occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or
attempting to commit
burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204; or
(c.) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit
kidnapping as defined
in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or
18-4-302, sexual
assault as set forth in section 18-3-402 or 18-3-403 as it existed prior to
July 1, 2000, or assault as
defined in sections 18-3-202 or 18-3-203.
3. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, a person is not
justified in using
physical force if:
(a.) With intent to cause bodily injury or death to another person, he
provokes the use of unlawful
physical force by that other person; or
(b.) He is the initial aggressor, except that his use of physical force upon
another person under the
circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from the encounter and
effectively communicates to
the other person his intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or
threatens the use of
unlawful physical force; or
(c.) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement
not specifically
authorized by law.
18-1-704.5 Use Of Deadly Physical Force Against An Intruder ("Make My Day Law")
1. The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a
right to expect absolute
safety within their own homes.
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is
justified in using any
degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person
when that other person has
made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable
belief that such other
person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is
committing or intends
to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry,
and when the occupant
reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter
how slight, against any
occupant.
3. Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical -
-
Permalink Reply by Rebekah on
-
Continued:
3. Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical
force, in accordance with
the provisions or subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal
prosecution for the use of
such force.
4. Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical
force, in accordance with
the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil
liability for injuries or death
resulting from the use of such force.
18-1-705 Use Of Physical Force In Defense Of Premises
A person in possession or control of any building, realty, or other premises, or a
person who is licensed or
privileged to be thereon, is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical
force upon another person
when and to the extent that it is reasonably necessary to prevent or terminate what
he reasonably believes to
be the commission or attempted commission of an unlawful trespass by the other
person in or upon the
building, realty, or premises. However, he may use deadly force only in defense of
himself or another as
described in section 18-1-704, or when he reasonably believes it necessary to
prevent what he reasonably
believes to be an attempt by the trespasser to commit first-degree arson.
18-1-706 Use Of Physical Force In Defense Of Property
A person is justified in using reasonably and appropriate physical force upon another
person when and to
the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably
believes to be an attempt
by the other person to commit theft, criminal mischief, or criminal tampering
involving property, but he
may use deadly physical force under these circumstances only in defense of himself
or another as described
in section 18-1-704. -
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- …
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
Latest Activity
"Puny Gods die on crosses, I would be like Thor riding off with Natalie Portman or Posieden fishing for Kraken"
JonEdanger replied to Herb Munson's discussion The Primacy and Existence of God in the group The Great Debate"If I saw someone die on a cross and come back I'd be more inclined to agree with you."
Herb Munson replied to Herb Munson's discussion The Primacy and Existence of God in the group The Great Debate"The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I would examine your life, words, works and power ... then, if ... though you were sinless... I saw you die on a cross for my sins ... I would consider it."
JonEdanger replied to Herb Munson's discussion The Primacy and Existence of God in the group The Great Debate"You might end up serving Koolaid in Shieldstown, Guyana"
"But what if I am claiming that I am also a God?"
StaggerLee replied to Liam's discussion Is it possible to beat addiction? in the group The Great Debate"That is a tricky issue. I would guess that you were never addicted to begin with, but certainly may be wrong. Hard to know and risky to assume from a four sentence post. Sorry if I did get it wrong!
It is possible to do something for long periods…"
© 2013 Created by Brett McKay.
Powered by
